Hologram stability evaluation for Microsoft HoloLens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Augmented reality (AR) has an increasing presence in the world of image-guided interventions which is amplified by the availability of consumer-grade head-mounted display (HMD) technology. The Microsoft<sup>®</sup> HoloLens<sup>TM</sup> optical passthrough device is at the forefront of consumer technology, as it is the first un-tethered head mounted computer (HMC). It shows promise of effectiveness in guiding clinical interventions, however its accuracy and stability must still be evaluated for the clinical environment. We have developed an evaluative protocol for the HoloLens<sup>TM</sup> using an optical measurement device to digitize the perceived pose of the rendered hologram. This evaluates the ability of the HoloLens<sup>TM</sup> to maintain the hologram in its intended pose. The stability is measured when actions are performed that may cause a shift in the holograms’ pose due to errors in its simultaneous localization and mapping. An emphasis is placed on actions that are more likely to be performed in a clinical setting. This will be used to determine the most applicable use cases for this technology in the future and how to minimize errors when in use. Our results show promise of this device’s potential for intraoperative clinical use. Further analysis must be performed to evaluate other potential sources of hologram disruption.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it